{"id":49327,"date":"1996-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996"},"modified":"2015-11-24T16:57:03","modified_gmt":"2015-11-24T11:27:03","slug":"director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 708, \t JT 1996 (6)\t502<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDIRECTOR GENERAL, EST & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. ABDUL RAZAK ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 708\t  JT 1996 (6)\t502\n 1996 SCALE  (5)113\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1996
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C Agrawal
\n\t  Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
\nM. Chandrasekharan, Additional solicitor General, V.J.
\nFrancis, P.I. Jose, Adv. and Amlan Ghose, Advs. with him for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nDirector General, ESI & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
T. Abdul Razak
\n\t   [ WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3953 OF 1988,
\n\t   CIVIL APPEAL\t  NO. 1913  OF 1989  AND
\n\t   SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO 13126-27
\n\t   OF\t1996   {C.C.  NO.   368\/1996  }]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.C. AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3952\/1988, 3953\/1988 AND 1913\/1989\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
      These  appeals directed  against the  judgment of\t the
\ncentral\t   Administrative    Tribunal,\t  Bangalore    Bench
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘the Tribunal’)  dated January
\n29, 1988 raise a common question relating to the validity of
\nRule 16(2)  of\tthe  employees’\t State\tInsurance  (Central)
\nRules, 1950  (hereinafter referred  to as  ‘the Rules’)\t and
\nRegulations  12(2)   and  13(1)\t  of  the  Employees’  State
\nInsurance  Corporation\t(Staff\tand  Condition\tof  Service)
\nRegulations,  1959   (hereinafter  referred   to   as\t‘the
\nregulations’)
\n     The Employees’  State Insurance  Corporation (for short
\n‘the Corporation’)  is a  statutory corporation\t established
\nunder the  provisions  of  the\tEmployees’  State  Insurance
\nCorporation Act,  1948 (herein\tafter referred\tto  as\t‘the
\nAct’). Under  Section 16  of the Act the Director General of
\nthe Employees’\tState Insurance\t Corporation (for short ‘the
\nDirector General’)  is the  Chief Executive  Officer of\t the
\nCorporation and is one of the Principal officers. Section 17
\nof the\tAct makes provisions with regard to staff other than
\nthe Principal  Officers. In sub-section (2) of Section 17 it
\nis provided that the Corporation shall, with the approval of
\nthe  Central  Government,  make\t regulations  regarding\t the
\nmethod\tof  recruitment,  pay  and  allowances,\t discipline,
\nsuperannuation benefits\t and other  conditions of service of
\nthe members  of its  staff. Section  94-A, wherein provision
\nhas been  made for  delegation of  powers, provides that the
\nCorporation, and  Subject   to the  regulations made  by the
\nCorporation in\tthis  behalf,  the  Standing  Committee\t may
\ndirect that all of any of the powers and functions which may
\nbe exercised  by the  Corporation or the Standing Committee,
\nas the\tcase may  be, may  in relation\tto such\t matters and
\nsubject to  such conditions, if any, as may be specified, by
\nalso exercisable  by any officer or authority subordinate to
\nthe Corporation\t sub-section (1)  of Section  95 of  the Act
\nempowers  the\tCentral\t Government   to  make\t rules\t not
\ninconsistent with  the Act  for the purpose of giving effect
\nto the\tprovisions thereof.  Under clause (d) of sub-section
\n(2) of\tSection 95 such rules may provide for the powers and
\nduties of the principal officers and the conditions of their
\nservice.  Sub-section\t(1)  of\t  Section  97  empowers\t the
\nCorporation to\tmake regulations   not inconsistent with the
\nAct and\t the rules made thereunder for the administration of
\nthe affairs  of the Corporation and for carrying into effect
\nthe provisions of the Act. Under clause (xxi) of sub-section
\n(2) of\tSection 97  such regulations  may  provide  for\t the
\nmethod\tof  recruitment,  pay  and  allowances,\t discipline,
\nsuperannuation benefits\t and other  conditions of service of
\nofficers and  servants of  the Corporation  other  than\t the
\nprincipal officer.\n<\/p>\n
     The Rules have been framed by the Central Government in
\nexercise of  the powers\t conferred by Section 95 of the Act.
\nRule 16\t relating to  the powers  and duties of the Director
\nGeneral is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Rule 16.\tPowers and duties of the
\n     Director General  .- (1) The powers
\n     and duties\t of the Director General
\n     shall be –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1)  to   act\t as   the  Chief
\n     Executive\t  officer     of     the
\n     Corporation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) to co-ordinate, supervise
\n     and control  the work  of the other
\n     Principal Officers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii) to  convene,  under  the
\n     orders of the Chairman, meetings of
\n     the   Corporation,\t  the\tStanding
\n     Committee and  the Medical\t Benefit
\n     Council in\t accordance with the Act
\n     and the  Rules and to implement the
\n     decisions reached at the meetings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv) to  enter into  contracts
\n     on\t  behalf   of\tCorporation   in
\n     accordance\t with  the  Act\t or  the
\n     Rules    of     regulations    made
\n     thereunder,  or   the  General   or
\n     special\tinstruction    of    the
\n     Corporation   or\t the\tStanding
\n     Committee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (v) to furnish all returns and
\n     documents required\t by the\t Act  or
\n     the Rules to the Central Government
\n     and to  correspond with the Central
\n     Government\t   and\t   the\t   State
\n     Governments   upon\t   all\t matters
\n     concerning the Corporation ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (vi) to  undertake such  other
\n     duties and\t to exercise  such other
\n     powers as\tmay from time to time be
\n     entrusted or delegated to him.
\n     (2) The  Director General may, with
\n     the  approval   of\t  the\tStanding
\n     Committee, by  general  or\t special
\n     order, delegate  any of  his powers
\n     or duties\tunder the  Rules or  the
\n     Regulations or under any resolution
\n     of the  Corporation or the Standing
\n     Committee, as  the case  may be, to
\n     any person\t subordinate to him. The
\n     exercise or discharge of any of the
\n     powers or duties so delegated shall
\n     be subjected  to such restrictions,
\n     limitations and conditions, if any,
\n     as the  Director General  may, with
\n     the  approval   of\t  the\tStanding
\n     Committee impose.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Regulations  have been\t made by  the Corporation in
\nexercise of  powers conferred  by sub-section (1) of Section
\n97 read with clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) and sub-section
\n(2-A) of  the said Section and sub-section (2) of Section 17
\nof the\tAct.  The  Regulations\tapply  to  every  whole-time
\nemployee  of   the  Corporation\t other\tthan  the  principal
\nofficers  appointed   under  Section  16  of  the  Act.\t The
\nRegulations  contain   provisions   regarding\tappointment,
\nprobation, termination\tof service,  pay,  leave,  provident
\nfund, age  of retirement  pensionary benefits,\tcontrol\t and
\ndiscipline suspension,\tpenalties etc,\tregulation 12  which
\nrelates to  disciplinary authorities provides as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Regulation    12.\t    Disciplinary
\n     Authorities-   (1)\t  The\tDirector
\n     General  may   impose  any\t of  the
\n     penalties specified  in  regulation
\n     11 on any employee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Without   prejudice\tto   the
\n     provisions\t of  sub-regulation  (1)
\n     but subject  to the  provisions  of
\n     sub-regulation  (3)   any\tof   the
\n     penalties specified  in  regulation
\n     11 may  be imposed\t on any employee
\n     by the  appointing authority or the
\n     authority specified  in this behalf
\n     by a  general of  special order  of
\n     the Director General.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)    Notwithstanding\tanything
\n     contained in  this\t regulation,  no
\n     penalty specified\tin clause (v) to\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ix) regulation 11 shall be imposed
\n     by any authority subordinate to the
\n     appointing authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation-  Where   an\texployee
\n     holding a\tpost of\t any  class,  is
\n     promoted, whether\ton probation  or
\n     temporarily to the post of the next
\n     higher class,  he shall  be  deemed
\n     for the  purpose of this regulation
\n     to hold the post of the such higher
\n     class.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Regulation 13  which makes\t provision for the authority
\nwho can institute disciplinary proceedings reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Regulation   13.\t  Authority   to
\n     Institute\tProceedings-   (1)   The
\n     Director  General\t or  any   other
\n     authority\tempowered   by\thim   by
\n     General or special order may :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)     institute\t    disciplinary
\n     proceeding against any employee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) direct a disciplinary authority
\n     to\t     institute\t    disciplinary
\n     proceeding against\t any employee on
\n     whom that disciplinary authority is
\n     competent\tto  impose  under  these
\n     regulation\t any  of  the  penalties
\n     specified in regulation 11,
\n     (2)   A\tdisciplinary   authority
\n     competent under  these  regulations
\n     to\t impose\t any  of  the  penalties
\n     specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of
\n     regulation\t  11\tmay    institute
\n     disciplinary  proceedings\t against
\n     any employee  for the imposition of
\n     any penalties  specified in clauses\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  to   (ix)  of\t  regulation  11
\n     notwithstanding\t  that\t    such
\n     disciplinary   authority\tis   not
\n     competent under  these  regulations
\n     to\t impose\t  any  of   the\t  latter
\n     penalties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view of the powers conferred under Regulation 12(2),
\nthe Director  General made  and order  dated May 10, 1974 in
\nthe following terms :-\n<\/p>\n
     “OFFICE ORDER NO 181 OF 1974
\n     In exercise of the powers conferred
\n     by\t Regulation  No.  12(2)\t of  the
\n     Employees’\t    State      Insurance
\n     Corporation (Staff\t and  Conditions
\n     of Service)  Regulations 1959,  the
\n     Director General  hereby  delegates
\n     powers to the Officers specified in
\n     Schedule-I\t   to\t impose\t   minor
\n     penalties specified  in clauses (1)
\n     to (iv) of Regulation 11 in respect
\n     of employees specified in Schedule-
\n     II on  condition  that  the  powers
\n     shall be  exercisable in respect of
\n     the employees  in their  respective
\n     regions\/offices.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  This office  order  supersedes
\n     all previous  order on  the subject
\n     without  prejudice\t to  any  action
\n     taken or  proceedings initiated  in
\n     exercise of the powers conferred by
\n     the said or orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       SCHEDULE-I\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1. Regional Directors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Director (Medical), Delhi.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t    Administrative\tOfficer,
\n     establishment    Branch\tII    at
\n     Headquarters Officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t     SCHEDULE – II\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1. Head Clerks, Assistants\/Managers
\n     Grade-III, Personal Assistants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t   Insurance\tInspectors\/Audit
\n     Inspectors\/Manager Grade – II”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said  order was  modified by  order dated  April 9,
\n1981 which reads as under:-<\/p>\n
\n\t     “Office Order
\n     In exercise  of the power conferred
\n     by\t Regulation  No.  12(2)\t of  the
\n     Employees’\t    State      Insurance
\n     Corporation (Staff\t and  Conditions
\n     of Service)  Regulations, 1959, the
\n     undersigned hereby delegates powers
\n     to\t  Regional    Directors\/Director
\n     (Medical)\t    Delhi\/Administrative
\n     Officer-II to  impose  any\t of  the
\n     penalties specified  in clauses (i)
\n     to (ix)  of Regulation  11 ibid  on
\n     class  III\t  (excluding   Insurance
\n     Inspectors\/Managers  Grade-II\/Audit
\n     Inspectors and Personal Assistants)
\n     and class\tIV employees,  in  their
\n     respective\t  regions\/offices.    In
\n     cases\t   of\t       Insurance
\n     Inspectors\/Managers  Grade-II\/Audit
\n     Inspectors and Personal Assistants,
\n     the powers already delegated by the
\n     Director General  vide office order
\n     No. 181  of 1974 dated 10.5.1974 to
\n     all  regional   Directors\/Directors
\n     (Medical)\t    Delhi\/Administrative
\n     Officer II\t  to  impose only  minor
\n     penalties as  specified in\t clauses
\n     (1) to  (iv) of  Regulation 11 ibid
\n     shall be  exercisable by  them. The
\n     powers delegated  by  the\tDirector
\n     General vide  office order\t NO.  16<\/span>
\n     (1)-2\/73\/-EI   will    thus   stand
\n     modified to the extent above.\n<\/p>\n
\t  It is circulated that Director
\n     General  will  continue  to  be  in
\n     disciplinary authority  in\t respect
\n     of\t Head  Clerks\/Assistants\/Manager
\n     Grade III, whose appointments above
\n     been   made    by\t him\/or\t   whose
\n     appointments have\tbeen made before
\n     1.12.1980 i.e.  prior to  the issue
\n     of this office Memorandum No. 7(3)-\n<\/p>\n
     1\/74 EI  (b)  dated  15.11.1980  to
\n     impose major panalties specified in
\n     clauses (v)  to (ix)  of regulation
\n     11 ibid.\n<\/p>\n
\t  This\t order\t  modified   all
\n     previous  orders\ton  the\t subject
\n     without  prejudice\t to  any  action
\n     taken or  proceeding  initiated  in
\n     exercise of the powers conferred by
\n     the said orders.”\n<\/p>\n
     The Standing  Committee had earlier passed a resolution
\ndated May 24, 1968 in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Resolved that  notwithstanding any
\n     restrictions imposed  earlier,  the
\n     Director General  may delegate  any
\n     of his  power under  the Rules,  or
\n     the  Regulations\tor   under   any
\n     resolution of  the Corporation  and
\n     the Standing Committee, as the case
\n     may be,  to any officer subordinate
\n     to\t   him,\t   subject    to    such
\n     restrictions,    limitations    and
\n     conditions, if any, as the Director
\n     General may  impose  from\ttime  to
\n     time.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     T. Abdul  Razak (respondent  in Civil Appeals Nos. 3952
\nof 1988\t and 3953 of 1988) was employed as Insurance Manager
\nGr.  II\/Inspector   with   the\t corporation.\tDisciplinary
\nproceedings were  initiated  against  him  by  the  regional
\nDirector of  Karnataka Region  on the  basis  of  Memorandum
\ndated October  20,  1983.  In  the  said  proceedings  after
\nholding an  enquiry an\torder was  passed  by  the  Director
\nGeneral on  March 6,  1987 imposing the penalty of reduction
\nin rank\t to the\t post of  Head Clerk\/Manager  Gr.III  for  a
\nperiod of one year. The said respondent filed an application
\n(Application No. 473 of 1987 ) before the Tribunal assailing
\nthe  said   order,  disciplinary  proceedings  were  started
\nagainst the  said respondent  by the  Regional\tDirector  of
\nKarnataka Region  on the  basis of  another Memorandum dated
\nJanuary 23,  1985. A  writ petition  was field\tby the\tsaid
\nrespondent in  the Karnataka High Court challenging the said
\nmemorandum and\tthe competence\tof the\tRegional Director to
\ninitiate  the\tDisciplinary  proceedings.   The  said\twrit
\npetition was  subsequently transferred\tto the\tTribunal and
\nwas registered as Application No. 1678 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
     P.K. Philip  (respondent in  Civil Appeal\tNO. 1913  of
\n1989)  was   employed  as   Manager  Gr.   II.\tDisciplinary
\nproceedings were  initiated  against  him  by  the  Regional
\nDirector on  the basis of Memorandum dated July 18\/25, 1986.
\nThe said  respondent filed  an application  (Application No.
\n747 of\t1987)  before  the  Tribunal  challenging  the\tvery
\ninitiation of  said proceedings\t against him by the Regional
\nDirector.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  three petitions,\tnamely, Application No. 1678
\nof 1986\t and application  No. 473  of 1987 filed by T. Abdul
\nRazak and  Application No  474 of  1987 filed by P.K. Philip
\nhave been  disposed of\tby  the\t Tribunal  by  the  impugned
\njudgment dated\tJanuary 29,  1988 whereby  the Tribunal\t has
\nStruck down  Rule 16(2)\t of the\t Rules in  its entirety, the
\nwords “or  the authority  specified  in\t this  behalf  by  a
\ngeneral\t or  special  order  of\t the  Director\tGeneral:  in
\nRegulation 12(2)  and the  words  “or  any  other  authority
\nempowered by  him  by  general\tor  special  order  may”  in
\nregulation 13(1)  of the  Regulation. The  resolution of the
\nStanding Committee  of the Corporation dated May 24, 1968 as
\nwell as\t orders dated  May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed
\nby the Director General have also been quashed. The Tribunal
\nhas also  quashed the  memorandum dated\t October  20,  1983,
\nJanuary 21,  1985 and  July 18\/25, 1986 regarding initiation
\nof disciplinary\t proceedings against both the respondents by
\nRegional Director  of Karnataka\t Region as well as the order
\nof punishment  dated March  6, 1987  passed by\tthe Director
\nGeneral against the respondent, T. Abdul Razak.\n<\/p>\n
     The Tribunal  has held that there was delegation of the
\npowers of the Corporation to the Director General and it was
\nnot permissible\t in law\t for the Director General to further
\nDelegate the  said powers to the said powers to the Regional
\nDirector. In taking the said view the Tribunal has proceeded
\non the\tbasis that  the powers\tof the corporation have been
\ndelegated to  the Director General under Section 97-A of the
\nAct and\t since Section\t94-A does  not\tmake  provision\t for
\nfurther delegation  by the  Director General of the Power so
\ndelegated the resolution of the Standing Committee dated May
\n24, 1968  as well  as Rule  16(2) and  regulation 12(2)\t and
\n13(1) by  empowering the  Director General  to\tspecify\t any
\nother  person  to  exercise  the  said\tpowers\tpermit\tsub-
\ndelegation by  the delegate  of the  powers delegated to him
\nwhich is  not permissible in view of the well know principle
\ndelegates non  potest  delegate.  The  Tribunal\t has  placed
\nreliance on  the decision of the Karnataka High Court in The
\nEmployees State\t Insurance corporation,\t Banglore  v.  Shoba
\nEngineers,  Bangalore  &  Ors.\t1982  (1982  (44)  FLR\t100,
\nconstruing the provisions of Section 94-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     At\t the   outset,\tit   may  be   stated  that  in\t the
\napplications  that   were  filed   by  the  respondents\t the
\nchallenge was  mainly to  the memoranda\t dated\tOctober\t 20,
\n1983, January  21,  1985  and  July  18\/25,  1986  regarding
\ninitiation  of\tdisciplinary  proceedings  by  the  Regional
\nDirector and  the order\t dated March  6, 1987  passed by the
\nDirector General  imposing the\tpenalty of reduction in rank
\non respondent,\tT.Abdul Razak. The order dated March 6, 1987
\nwas passed  by the  Director General  himself  who  was\t the
\ndisciplinary authority\tand it\tis not\topen to challenge on
\nthe ground of delegation  of powers by the Director General.
\nThe validity  of the  said order was challenged on the basis
\nthat the Regional Director was not competent to initiate the
\ndisciplinary proceedings  in which the order was passed. The
\nTribunal  was,\t therefore,  primarily\tconcerned  with\t the
\nvalidity of  three memoranda  referred\tto  above  regarding
\ninitiation  of\tdisciplinary  proceedings  by  the  Regional
\nDirector. In this context, it may be mentioned that no order
\nof the\tDirector General  delegating  his  powers  regarding
\ninitiation  of\tdisciplinary  proceedings  under  Regulation
\n13(1) had been placed before the Tribunal. The tow orders of
\nthe Director  General dated  may 10, 1974 and July 18, 1981,
\nwhich were under challenge, had been passed under Regulation
\n12(2) whereby  the Director  General had delegated the power
\nto impose minor penalties specified in clauses (1) to (i) of
\nRegulation 11  in respect of certain categories of employees
\nspecified  therein   on\t the   officers\t specified  therein.
\nTherefore. in  so far  as  the\tvalidity  of  the  memoranda
\nregarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the
\nrespondents is\tconcerned the  question regarding delegation
\nof  powers  by\tthe  Director  General\tdid  not  arise\t for
\nconsideration and the Tribunal was not required to deal with
\nthe question  regarding validity  of Rule 16(2), Regulations
\n12(2) and  13(1), the  resolution of  the Standing Committee
\ndated May  24, 1968  and the  orders of the Director General
\ndated May  10, 1974  and  April\t 9,  1981.  With  regard  to
\ninitiation  of\tdisciplinary  proceedings  by  the  Regional
\nDirector, we  find that\t the legal  position is well settled
\nthat it\t is not\t necessary that\t the authority\tcompetent to
\nimpose\tthe   penalty\tmust   initiate\t  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings and\t that the proceeding can be initiated by any
\nsuperior authority  who can  be held  to be  the controlling
\nauthority, [ See : State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh,<\/a>
\n1970 (1)  SCC 108;  P.V. Srinivasa  Sastry v.  Comptroller &
\nAuditor General,<\/a>  1993 (1) SCC 419; and Inspector General of
\nPolice &  Anr. v.  Thavasiappan,<\/a> 1996  (2) SCC\t145  ].\t The
\nRegional Director,  being  the\tofficer\t in  charge  of\t the
\nregion, was  the controlling  authority in  respect  of\t the
\nrespondents, was the controlling authority in respect of the
\nrespondents. He could institute the disciplinary proceedings
\nagainst the  respondents even  in the  absence\tof  specific
\nconferment of  power in\t that regard.  The  memoranda  dated
\nOctober 20,  1983, January  21, 1985  and July\t18\/25,\t1986
\nregarding initiation  of disciplinary\tproceedings  against
\nthe respondents\t by the Regional Director, therefore, do not
\nsuffer from  any legal\tinfirmity and the applications filed
\nby the\trespondents before  the Tribunal has pronounced upon
\nthe validity of Rule 16(2), Regulations 12(2) and 13(1), the
\nresolution of  the standing Committee dated May 24, 1968 and
\norders dated  May 10,  1974 and\t April 9, 1981 passed by the
\nDirector  General   it\tbecomes\t necessary  to\texamine\t the
\ncorrectness of the decision of the Tribunal in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
     The law  is well  settled that  in accordance  with the
\nmaxim delegates\t non potest delegate, a statutory power must
\nbe exercised only by the body of officer in whom it has been
\nconfided, unless  sub-delegation of  the power is authorised
\nby  express   words  or\t  necessary  implication.  [  See  :
\nHalsbury’s Laws\t of England,  4th Edn. Vol. 1 para 32 p. 34;
\nCraies on  Statute Law, 7th Edn p. 316; the Barium Chemicals
\nLtd. and  Anr. v.  The Company\tLaw Board  and Others,<\/a>\t1966
\nSupp. SCR  311, at  p. 330 and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and
\nAnr. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation,<\/a> 1994 (5) SCC
\n346, at pp. 350-351 ]
\n     In Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. The employees’
\nState Insurance\t Corporation (supra) this Court has approved
\nthe decision  of the  Karnataka High Court in the Employees’
\nState Insurance\t Corporation, Bangalore\t v. Shoba Engineers,
\nBangalore and Ors.<\/a> (supra). It has been held that Parliament
\nwhile introducing  Section 94-A\t in the\t Act only  Conceived
\ndirect delegation  by the  Corporation to different officers
\nor authorities\tsubordinate to\tthe Corporation and there is
\nno scope  for such  delegate to\t sub-delegate that power, by
\nauthorising any\t other officer\tto exercise  or perform\t the
\npowers so  delegated. The  Tribunal has,  therefore  rightly
\nheld that Section 94-A does not specifically provide that an
\nofficer or  authority subordinate to the Corporation to whom
\nthe power  the power  has been\tdelegated by the Corporation
\ncan, in\t his turn,  authorise any  other officer to exercise
\nthat power  of function.  But the  question that  arises  is
\nwhether Rule  16(2) of\tthe Rules  and Regulations 12(2) and
\n13(1) of  The Regulations  relate to  exercise of  powers or
\nfunctions of  the  Corporation\tor  the\t Standing  Committee
\ndelegated to  the Director General by the Corporation or the
\nStanding Committee  under Section  94-A of the Act. In order
\nto  answer  these  question,  it  is  necessary\t to  make  a
\ndistinction  between  a\t power\tconferred  on  the  Director
\nGeneral under  a rule  made in exercise of rule making power
\nunder Section  95 or  under a regulation made in exercise of
\npower to  make regulations  under  Sections  97(2)(xxi)\t and
\n17(2) of  the Act and a power or function of the Corporation
\nor the Standing Committee which is delegated to the Director
\nGeneral under  Section 94-A.  A rule or a regulation made in
\nexercise of  a power  conferred by  a statue  being  in\t the
\nnature of  subordinate legislation is statutory in character
\nwhile a\t resolution of a Corporation or a Standing Committee
\nis purely  administrative in  nature. Therefore,  the  power
\nconferred  on  the  Director  General  under  a\t rule  or  a
\nregulation is in the nature of statutory power that has been
\nconferred independently\t on the\t Director General. It cannot
\nbe regarded  as delegation  of powers  and functions  of the
\nCorporation or\tthe Standing Committee under Section 94-A of
\nthe Act.  Section 94-A speaks of “powers and functions which
\nmay be\texercised or  performed by  the Corporation  or\t the
\nStanding Committee”. The said powers and functions are other
\nthan the  powers that  are conferred  independently  on\t the
\nDirector General under the Rule or the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
     On that  view of  the matter regulations 12 and 13 must
\nbe  construed\tas  conferring\tindependent  powers  on\t the
\nDirector General  and it cannot be said to be the powers and
\nfunctions of  the Corporation or the Standing Committee that
\nhave  been   delegated\tto   the  Director  General  by\t the
\nCorporation or\tthe Standing  Committee under  Section 94-A.
\nRegulation 12(2)  which\t  empowers the\tDirector General  to
\nspecify by  general of special order the authority which can
\nalso Act  as a\tdisciplinary authority and regulations 13(1)
\nwhich authorises  the Director General to empower by general
\nor  special   order  any   other  authority   to   institute
\ndisciplinary proceedings  against an  employee,\t  cannot  be
\nregarded as  empowering\t  further delegation by the Director
\nGeneral of  powers  delegated  to  him.\t The  Tribunal\twas,
\nTherefore, in error in striking down the words “or any other
\nauthority specified  in this  behalf by a general or special
\norder of  the Director\tGeneral” in Regulation 12(2) and the
\nwords “or any other authority empowered by him by general or
\nspecial order may” in Regulation 13(1) on the view that they
\npermit further\tdelegation by  the Director  General of\t the
\npowers delegated to him which is impermissible. The decision
\nof the\tTribunal in  this regard  cannot be  upheld and\t the
\noffending words\t in Regulations\t 12(2)\tand  13(1)  must  be
\ntreated as  a valid  conferment of  power  on  the  Director
\nGeneral to  delegate his  powers under\tside regulation. The
\norders dated  May 10,  1974 and April 9, 1981 were passed by
\nthe Director  General in Exercise of the powers conferred on
\nhim under  Regulation 12(2). By the said orders the Director
\nGeneral delegated  the\tpowers\tto  impose  minor  penalties
\nspecified in clauses (i) to (iv) of regulation 11 in respect
\nof  certain   categories  of   employees  and  the  officers
\nspecified in  the said\torders, Since  the offending part of
\nRegulation  12(2) has been found to be valid the said orders
\ndated May  10, 1974  and April\t9, 1981 must be held to have
\nbeen validly  issued in\t exercise of the power of delegation
\nconferred on the Director General under Regulation 12(2).\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee
\ndated May  24,\t1968  go  together,  under  rule  16(2)\t the
\nDirector General  has been  empowered to delegate any of his
\npowers or  duties under the Rules or the Regulation or under
\nany resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee,
\nas the\tcase may  be, to  any person subordinate to him, For
\nthe purpose  of such  delegation it  is necessary  for\t the
\nDirector General  to obtain  the approval  of  the  Standing
\nCommittee.   Resolution of  the Standing Committee dated May
\n24, 1968  accords such approval to the Director General. The
\npower of delegation under Rule 16(2) can be divided into two
\nparts; one  relating to\t delegation of\tthe powers or duties
\nunder the  Rule 16(2)  can be  divided into  two parts;\t one
\nrelating to  delegation of  the powers\tor duties  under the
\nRules or the Regulation and other relating to the powers and
\nduties under  any  resolution  of  the\tCorporation  or\t the
\nStanding Committee.  Insofar as\t the powers  or duties under
\nthe Rules  or the  Regulations are concerned, the conferment
\non the\tDirector General  the power  to delegate the same is
\nnot  violative\t of  the   principle  of  sub-delegation  as
\nindicated earlier  because the said powers and duties are in
\nthe nature  of independent statutory powers conferred on the
\nDirector General  under the  Rules  or\tto  Regulations.  No
\ninfirmity can,\ttherefore, be  found either in Rule 16(2) or
\nin the\tresolution of  the Standing  Committee dated May 24,
\n1968 empowering\t the Director General to delegate any of his
\npowers or  duties under\t the Rules  or the  Regulations. The
\nposition is, However, different in respect of the and duties
\nconferred on  the Director  General under  any resolution of
\nthe Corporation or the Standing Committee. The conferment of
\nsuch powers  or duties under a resolution of the Corporation
\nor the\tStanding Committee  could be by way of delegation of
\nthe powers  of the  Corporation or  the\t Standing  Committee
\nunder Section  94-A of\tthe Act\t and empowering the Director
\nGeneral to  further delegate the said powers or duties would
\namount to  sub-delegation of  a power delegated to him which
\nis impermissible  in view  of the law laid down in Sahni Sil
\nMills (supra.  Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing
\nCommittee dated May 24, 1968, to the extent they empower the
\ndirector General  to further  delegate the  powers or duties
\ndelegated  to\thim  by\t the  Corporation  or  the  Standing
\nCommittee under\t a resolution referable to Section 94-A have
\nto be held to be invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforementioned,  the impugned judgment
\nof the\tTribunal is set aside insofar as it strikes down the
\nwords “or  any other authority specified in this behalf by a
\ngeneral\t or  special  order  of\t the  Director\tGeneral”  in
\nRegulation 12(2)  and the  words  “or  any  other  authority
\nempowered by  him  by  general\tor  special  order  may”  in
\nRegulation 13(1)  of the  Regulations and quashes the orders
\ndated May  10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director
\nGeneral, the  memoranda dated  October 20, 1983, January 21,
\n1985 and  July 18\/25,  1986 and\t the order  dated March\t 18,
\n1987,  Rule   16(2)  and  the  resolution  of  the  Standing
\nCommittee, to  the extent  they empower the Director General
\nto delegate  the powers or duties delegated to him under any
\nresolution of  the Corporation\tor  the\t Standing  Committee
\nreferable   to Section 94-A, Are invalid but the rest of the
\nsaid Rule  and the  resolution are  valid. As  a result, the
\napplications filed  by the  respondents before\tthe Tribunal
\nare dismissed. The appeals are disposed of according. But in
\nthe circumstances there is no order as\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n
     SPECIAL LEAVE  PETITIONS (CIVIL)  NO. 13126-27  OF 1996
\n{C.C. NO. 368\/1996}
\n     Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner  had  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,
\nAhmedabad Bench\t for quashing  the Disciplinary\t proceedings
\ninitiated against him by the Regional Director and the order
\nof compulsory  retirement passed  in those  proceedings. The
\ncompetence  of\t the  Regional\t Director  to  initiate\t the
\nDisciplinary proceedings was challenged by the petitioner by
\nrelying on  the decision  of the  Tribunal in the case of T.
\nAbdul Razak. The Tribunal has negatived the said contention.
\nSince we have set aside the said decision of the Tribunal in
\nthe case  of T.\t Abdul Razak,  we  find\t no  merit  in\tthis
\npetition and the same is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 708, JT 1996 (6) 502 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: DIRECTOR GENERAL, EST & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: T. ABDUL RAZAK ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/1996 BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996"},"wordCount":4311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996","name":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-24T11:27:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-general-est-anr-vs-t-abdul-razak-etc-on-8-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director General, Est & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}